Hi, folks For those of you who wish to read the study for yourselves, here's a free link to the entire article: http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/0803622a.html A few quotes from the study marked by *, and my initialed comments: *"Breastfed infants gain weight more slowly during the first year of life than formula-fed infants, probably due to the natural limitations of available energy supply." MCV--Notice which is the standard of reference here. And maybe I'm introducing bias that only exists in MY brain and not these researchers, but the "slower" weight gain for bf babies is due to the natural limitations of available energy supply"?? Does that sound like bf is somehow denying babies the extra weight?? *"Participants are predominantly Caucasian white." MCV--Obesity varies by ethnic origin so we are missing major pieces of the puzzle. *"Participants in the NHS II were asked in 1989 to report their height, their current weight and their weight at age 18. Information on current weight was updated on biennial questionnaires. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight divided by the square of height (kg/m2). The validity of recalled weight at age 18 and self-reported current height was examined among 118 participants of NHS II using records from physical examinations conducted at college or nursing school entrance.17 The correlation between recalled and measured past weight was 0.87 and between reported current height and measured past height was 0.94. Mean BMI values were 21.6 kg/m2 for BMI calculated using recalled weight and were 22.1 kg/m2 using weight from medical records; the correlation was 0.84. Overall, the validity of recalled weight at 18 years of age and self-reported height appears to be high among women in this cohort." MCV--I am NOT an expert in statistical analysis, so help me out if I'm misinterpreting. However.... If I understand this right the correlation on these recalled data is 0.84--that would be on a scale of 0 (can't remember anything right) to 1.0 (complete and total accurate recall). 0.84 leaves a LOT of wiggle room--especially when you look at the better done obesity studies where the effect of bf is seen to be fairly small, but still significant. This much variation in recall could negate the amount of difference that bf might confer. *"NHS II participants were also asked to recall their body shape at ages 5 and 10 using a nine-level figure drawing (Figure 1) originally developed by Stunkard.19 Must et al.20 evaluated the validity of remote recall of body fatness among 181 participants in the Third Harvard Growth Study, a Boston-area longitudinal study of physical and mental growth in children that was conducted between 1922 and 1935.Height and weight were measured as part of annual examinations during childhood and adolescence and were used to calculate BMI in kilograms per meters squared (kg/m2). In 1988 and 1989, when participants were between ages 71 and 76, they were interviewed again and asked to recall their body fatness at ages 5, 10, 15 and 20, using the same 9-level figure drawing as on the 1989 NHS II questionnaire. Pearson correlations between recalled body fatness and BMI at approximately the same ages were 0.60 for age 5, and 0.70 for age 10. Other studies had similar findings,21, 22, 23 indicating that, although imperfect, these figure drawings can provide useful information on body fatness at young ages." MCV: Again, we are talking about recall of what people THOUGHT they looked like at age 5. The correlation figures are 0.60 and 0.70--again, pretty low for what is likely a relatively small difference. Heck, I find myself startled when I see pictures of me TODAY that don't fit with my mental image of how much I weigh!! *"Information on infant feeding was coded as (1) having been breastfed for at least 1 week vs having never been breastfed or breastfed for less than 1 week, (2) duration of any breastfeeding (1 week-3 months, 3-6 months, 6-9 months, 9-12 months, one year or more) and (3) duration of exclusive breastfeeding (1 week-3 months, 3-6 months, 6 months or more). " MCV: The time periods here that bother me the most (other than the first grouping's def'n of having breastfed) is teh 3-6 month range. When you look at starting solids, that range includes 2-3 months worth of TOO EARLY solids for MOST babies. As someone pointed out, I don't think comparing figures from 40 years ago to today makes sense, given differences in formula, feeding practices, and the general knowledge we have now about lifestyle affects on weight control. I DO believe that breastfeeding confers some protection against obesity. I DON'T think it is a HUGE protection but one of many undeniable benefits of breastfeeding that exist as a package. And honestly, trying to research whether breastfeeding can help fight obesity trends is nearly pointless. Formula is not, cannot be, nutritionally comparable to breastfeeding. It is an inferior product. Period. Now, perhaps IF a WELL DONE study (which would be extremely hard to come by) showed that breastfeeding INCREASED the risk of obesity significantly, then that would be news. Okay, the choir can sit down now...... :-D Melissa Vickers, IBCLC (and author of the recently published LLLI pamphlet on Breastfeeding and Obesity, and no, I don't gain financially from sales of this pamphlet!) ----- Original Message ----- From: "MR ROBERT W GUBALA" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:04 PM Subject: obesity > Hi Melissa, > Saw an article in our local paper today on a study > of obesity ; that bfeeding makes no difference to > obesity in adulthood.I typed in International Journal > of Obesity on my search bar and was rewarded by being > able to get this article free.Check it out ,look for > "A Longitudinal Study of Infant Feeding and Obesity > Throughout Life Course" by > Michels KB ,April 24 ,2007 .I think there is too much > recall, not only from the nurses studied but by the > nurses mothers who were also questioned.I'm not sure > if all the types of bf were lumped together.What's > your take?? Judie Gubala > *********************************************** Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html Mail all commands to [log in to unmask] To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask]) To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask]) To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]